Section I 2010 Paper

Source: LINK

1. In better responses, candidates engaged well with the visual elements of the text and established a link between the visual and how the concept of belonging or not belonging to family was depicted. Weaker responses attempted a description of the image without addressing the ‘how’ aspect in the question.b.
2. In better responses, candidates clearly explained the nature of the relationship, using textual support to provide depth to the explanation. Weaker responses tended to provide a recount of the relationship.
3. In strong responses, candidates focused on the portrayal of friendship as an alternative source of belonging. They used textual references insightfully to identify issues in the text and went beyond literal interpretations to provide points about the idea of friendship as an alternative to family in establishing a sense of belonging. In weaker responses, candidates tended towards explanation with less apt choices in textual referencing and made more generalised statements about friendship and/or families.
4. In better responses, candidates examined elements of the text in order to interpret the text holistically. Explorations of the text’s meaning were supported by apt references that revealed the complexity of the speaker’s attitude. In weaker responses, candidates dealt with the text on a more literal level and often misinterpreted the attitude of the speaker or failed to refer to it at all.
5. In stronger responses, candidates analysed the distinctive perspectives provided in the texts and understood that ‘ways’ could be conceptual. They avoided generalisations and effectively addressed all elements of the question and provided aptly chosen textual evidence in support. Weaker responses tended towards explanation and textual referencing was limited.